Discussion
I love being able to check Wikipedia, read the main article, read the talk page, and get a ton of information about a subject w/a high degree of confidence in its consensus backing.
Just reading an article about the Syrian coup of 1963, for instance, and I feel so much more informed.
I had hoped that the entire web would be like this one day. It does not appear that that will happen.
@GeePawHill it's funny how we went from 'don't rely on Wikipedia' to 'Wikipedia is the only place you can trust'.
@GeePawHill Think thats bad? I thought we were headed towards Wikitocracy
@GeePawHill if you were hoping the entire web would be like the day of the Syrian coup, you might be closer... (I misread where "this one day" should be attached.)
@iris Missing comma.
Pro-tip: Momma raised me pretty, not so much with the smart.
Should have been "... like this, one day ..."
@GeePawHill I think your construction was also valid. I'm a chronic misreader. I share some of them if I think they're funny.
@GeePawHill
Agree completely that being able to check Wikipedia with confidence is great.
This evening at dinner we somehow got on the subject of Gaelic. Katrina thought it was Irish, our youngest thought it was Scottish and I had a hazy memory that it might be both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic
indicated there were many Gaelic languages and cultures:
Irish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language
Scottish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic
Norse (!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_language
1/
I generally enjoy historical fiction/docudrama, in books and film and tv, but I like to check the facts. They're never quite *exactly* accurate, and I'm okay with poetic license, invented characters, slightly incorrect sequencing.
But I like to know.
I have certain responsibilities in my family, and one of them is that, when we watch historical works, I am the designated 'splainer.
Secondary duty: I am also the person who remembers what other BBC/PBS murder series we've seen an actor in.
It's a non-dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
"See, baby, Henry is the capo di tutti capos, but Norfolk is the strongest capo amongst his lieutenants."
"Actually, Scots-Irish ancestry was surprisingly common among Native American leaders in the 18th and early 19th century."
"Not technically true: they just put two years into one episode without mentioning that."
That kinda thing.
@GeePawHill
This is god’s work
<shrug>
It's a living.
And people who shit-talk Wikipedia as a biased source have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
@GeePawHill It depends on the topic and who is sitting on the page enforcing their opinion.
Is wikipedia always right? OF COURSE NOT. But consensus history itself isn't always right, and Wikipedia is wrong no more often than any encyclopedia is.
Wikipedia is not an archive of "truth". It's an archive of consensual neutral cited general knowledge.
Consensual neutral cited general knowledge is a moving target.
(Except for the math pages. Never *ever* consult a wikipedia math page. They're the furthest thing from "general knowledge". Post-grads writing a language that does not resemble English in any way. They are why math departments are so often characterized as sheltered workshops.)
@GeePawHill what do you mean by a sheltered workshop? #lang_en
@GeePawHill wait is the second one about The Last of the Mohicans?
@kinsale42 Yes, but also about the clearances and the highlander & Irish rebellions, which dumped thousands of Scots-Irish into the colonies. They actually got along with the locals rather better than they got along with the English.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
